4.0 Article

Herbal Traditional Chinese Medicine and suspected liver injury: A prospective study

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 29, Pages 1141-1157

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v9.i29.1141

Keywords

Traditional Chinese Medicine; Herbal medicine; Liver injury; Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method; Herb induced liver injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To analyze liver tests before and following treatment with herbal Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in order to evaluate the frequency of newly detected liver injury. METHODS Patients with normal values of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as a diagnostic marker for ruling out pre-existing liver disease were enrolled in a prospective study of a safety program carried out at the First German Hospital of TCM from 1994 to 2015. All patients received herbal products, and their ALT values were reassessed 1-3 d prior to discharge. To verify or exclude causality for suspected TCM herbs, the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) was used. RESULTS This report presents for the first time liver injury data derived from a prospective, hospital-based and large-scale study of 21470 patients who had no liver disease prior to treatment with herbal TCM. Among these, ALT ranged from 1 x to < 5 x upper limit normal (ULN) in 844 patients (3.93%) and suggested mild or moderate liver adaptive abnormalities. However, 26 patients (0.12%) experienced higher ALT values of >= 5 x ULN (300.0 +/- 172.9 U/L, mean +/- SD). Causality for TCM herbs was RUCAM-based probable in 8/26 patients, possible in 16/26, and excluded in 2/26 cases. Bupleuri radix and Scutellariae radix were the two TCM herbs most commonly implicated. CONCLUSION In 26 (0.12%) of 21470 patients treated with herbal TCM, liver injury with ALT values of >= 5 x ULN was found, which normalized shortly following treatment cessation, also substantiating causality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available